Pages

During a panel on Fox News Sunday, Kristol predicted that “Republicans will have to give in much more than they think” because of President Barack Obama’s overwhelming electoral defeat of Mitt Romney.

“Four presidents in the last century have won 50 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Obama,” the conservative pundit explained. “It pains me to say that, to put him in with those other three, but it’s a fact. Democrats picked up seats in the House and the Senate. The president is in good shape. … I think there will be a big budget deal. It will be an Obama budget deal much more than a Paul Ryan-type budget deal. Elections have consequences.”
...

“Really? The Republican Party is going to fall on its sword to defend a bunch of millionaires, half of whom voted Democratic and half of them live in Hollywood?”

Since I've recently seen other high-profile conservatives calling for a softening of the "no negotiation" stance I'm hoping that we'll see more of the party come back to the table. The only recent story I've seen that has me worried about this is the report about Obama's newest budget proposal.

That document, which sought about $1.5 trillion in new revenue, was declared "dead on arrival" on Capitol Hill - along with virtually every other legislative proposal - when it landed there last winter during election season.

But it is being resurrected by the Obama administration as a framework for negotiations with Republicans to avoid the "fiscal cliff" of steep tax increases and indiscriminate budget cuts set to take effect the beginning of next year.

The fact that this is basically the same budget that Republicans completely shut down last time isn't inspiring confidence. While there have been some flickers of the idea that "we may need to negotiate" floating around the Republican party I'm not sure how many are going give this proposal an honest look because of their initial response to it and how they think it might look if they "cave in" now.

So, is this really a sea change for the Republican party in working with Obama or are these just instances of a few highly visible conservatives calling for change?

Germany, on the other hand, with a huge Turkish minority, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc. France, with huge North African muslim minorities, and sizeable Caribbean minorities, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

Really? You do realize that 80% of the population of Germany is native German and 88% are white European...

France is only 85% white so I have to question your definitions of sizeable and huge. :-p

Germany, on the other hand, with a huge Turkish minority, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc. France, with huge North African muslim minorities, and sizeable Caribbean minorities, has almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

Really? You do realize that 80% of the population of Germany is native German and 88% are white European...

France is only 85% white so I have to question your definitions of sizeable and huge. :-p

In a democratic system? It's quite simple. Having everyone sharing a common race, background, cultural values system makes it a lot easier to agree on a base line. Take Sweden for example. There is almost no debate on whether the population deserves to have a pension, universal health care, etc.

The complexities of core values and beliefs in the USA vs a Scandinavian country are pretty night and day.

Can you point to another country like the U.S. where universal health care, pension, etc. have been tried but failed? If not, then your contention is theoretical at best.

I think an equally valid theory is that Americans have, by and large, been conditioned to have a visceral reaction to anything that doesn't reek of pulling one's own self up by the bootstraps.

If you say you are for universal health care or guaranteed pensions, some people hear that what you want is Karl Marx to be President of the United States.

"People don't need to be born again; they need to grow up." - Bishop Shelby Spong
"Medusa had a death stare too, until she met Phoenix Rev." - PRG013

Going back to the small business arguement on raising taxes for those making over 250k it looks like it really would not have affected a very large percentage small businesses - especially those that have employees.

-Only one-fifth of small businesses are employers, using their definition.
-Only 8 percent of small-business owners have income of $200,000 or more. So 92 percent of small-business owners wouldn’t have been affected by Obama’s proposal.
-Slightly more than half of small businesses reported total income of less than $50,000, and half of those businesses reported a tax loss for the year.
-Only 0.5 percent of small businesses reported a profit in excess of $1 million. For those businesses, investment and rental income comprised roughly half of their reported income.
-Of the taxpayers in the top two brackets that would be increased, only 11 percent reported any small-business income, and only 9 percent qualify as small business owners.

I do still stand by earlier proposal that if these people are so important to the economy they should be categorized differently. It doesn't look like it is that big of a category though.

Do you believe that the European style of socialism is better than the American style of capitalism?

I suspect he does. I do too. So does the prosperity rankings of the EU's northern nations, which are the style of European socialism that people like Jayhawker and I point to as success stories.

You mean relatively small, homogeneous populations that are fairly densely populated and don't have much in the way of standing military?

Apples, meet oranges.

Europe has been at war in various configurations for most of the last millenia. They may have smaller standing armies now, but so what? It's apples and oranges, but not in the way you think. Europeans have far far more to be afraid of than anyone in the US does. Their history tells us that a major genocide, ethnic cleansing or horrific war is always around the corner. That they've largely reached similar conclusions on how to keep peace and run their economies has nothing to do with them "having it easy", if that's what you're implying. They still have standing armies and that density means that a lot of bureaucracy and politicking is required to keep Europe from splitting apart or worse. That most countries there have come to the same conclusion to various degrees is interesting, but it's not because of something inherent to Europe having advantages over the US.

Read some news out of the Balkans someday. They're still litigating and fighting over who was in the wrong during the Balkan wars of the 90s. Those wars were caused, in part, by deep ethnic divisions and tensions. Countries like Germany may not have the same immigration issues that we do, but most countries there have a significant internal disagreement. And major previous disagreements with their neighbors. That they're making it work in kind of amazing. That a few lagging countries like Greece and Italy have bad books (with an assist from predatory US banks) says nothing about the merits of European socialism vs. the US system.

I'll bow out now, it's a very interesting conversation here generally. The cartoonish representation of how 'easy' it is to govern in Europe just irked me.

The thing that's usually missed, that while here in the US, we tend to boil everyone who has white skin down into the white person category that's oh-so-homogenous (unless, you know, you're Jewish, or Southern, or a Yankee, or from the East Coast or West coast or...) compared to those with darker skin colors, that isn't particularly a trend that has occured in Europe. So while there's a small non-white minority to Americans, to Europeans, there's like 5 or 10 or 20 different ethnic groups who are all differentiated.

"What forest are you talking about?! I can't see anything with all these trees in the way!" ~Farscry

Can you point to another country like the U.S. where universal health care, pension, etc. have been tried but failed?

Well, you can certainly argue that it's failing across most of Europe, since those governments don't seem to be able to run balanced budgets while providing those services. Some are blowing up now, others will blow up in the future, but of all those countries, only Germany is in a truly strong fiscal position, and even Germany has a great deal of debt. It is strong in comparison to the other European countries, but not terribly strong in an absolute sense.

The appetite for healthcare is unlimited; the willingness (and ability) to pay taxes is sharply finite.

"I've been playing Rebel Galaxy for the past few days. It has made me appreciate every other game in the genre more." -- Flintheart Glomgold

Can you point to another country like the U.S. where universal health care, pension, etc. have been tried but failed?

Well, you can certainly argue that it's failing across most of Europe, since those governments don't seem to be able to run balanced budgets while providing those services. Some are blowing up now, others will blow up in the future, but of all those countries, only Germany is in a truly strong fiscal position, and even Germany has a great deal of debt. It is strong in comparison to the other European countries, but not terribly strong in an absolute sense.

The appetite for healthcare is unlimited; the willingness (and ability) to pay taxes is sharply finite.

So they haven't failed, you're just claiming they will in the future based on a one-sided vague argument.

You've argued this before. People will always demand the latest and bestest treatment, and because we're weak emotional creatures we'll grant it and inflict ever-rising costs upon ourselves. Eventually we'll either drown in taxes or the system will implode.

It's just too simplistic. First of all, people do not take the streets when a stranger can't afford healthcare. They feel empathy for a second or two and move on with their lives. At least I do. You also ignore how yes, new treatments are very expensive, but they always become much cheaper over time as patents expire and as they become more common. And you're not taking into account how healthier people are more productive and how investing in healthcare has solid returns.

And even if you're right and our healthcare becomes a financial deathtrap, this doesn't mean it has to be nuked from orbit, just to be sure. Numerous changes could be made to the system to curb the costs (higher personal input, most expensive treatments no longer paid back, ...).

Might I also mention that between its height in 1996 and the financial crisis of 2008, the Belgian national debt has dropped from 130% GDP to 85% GDP? And that our deficit is shrinking again, thanks to budget cuts and tax increases the last two-three years? This despite rising healthcare costs.

Thanks DSGamer. Anytime Europe crops up in these discussions, it seems like I tuned into the Cartoon Network.

Apart from the disparity between European countries DSGamer mentioned, the homogeneity within European nations is as big a myth. I'm sure the people of Belfast will find your claims most amusing, bandit0013. As will the Basques in Catalunia, Spain. Did you also forget that it took us Belgians 18 months to form a government because of regional tensions between Flanders and Wallonia? Not to mention that most European countries have plenty of immigrants to deal with, from our colonial past or economical immigration in the sixties.

And even for fairly unified cultures like the French, it's not as clear-cut as you think. France is one of the few non-Anglosaxon countries with a first past the post electoral system, so social-democrats have alternated full control of government with their right-wing competitors. With both parties able to push their respective pet projects since WWII, France is now a country without public broadcasting (the only one in Western Europe) and privatized highways (eat that, socialist US!). But France also heavily taxes the wealthy, and it's very hard to fire employees there.

I'll grant you that European nations have severely cut their defense expenses since the end of the Cold War. That was not a mistake, and I believe the US could do with a lot less and still be safe from invasions. At least until the zombie uprising, or until the aliens invade (whichever comes first).

I'll bow out now, it's a very interesting conversation here generally. The cartoonish representation of how 'easy' it is to govern in Europe just irked me.

Kind of off-topic, but why do you guys think that is? Vestigial (or active) religious legalism? Something else? I know there's a general human element to it, but American society seems particularly fond of institutionalized retribution.

It feels like an offshoot of American Exceptionalism to me. Us and them, and once someone's a felon, they're not longer us, they're them. Get 'em! Get 'em good!

I'll bow out now, it's a very interesting conversation here generally. The cartoonish representation of how 'easy' it is to govern in Europe just irked me.

The thing that's usually missed, that while here in the US, we tend to boil everyone who has white skin down into the white person category that's oh-so-homogenous (unless, you know, you're Jewish, or Southern, or a Yankee, or from the East Coast or West coast or...) compared to those with darker skin colors, that isn't particularly a trend that has occured in Europe. So while there's a small non-white minority to Americans, to Europeans, there's like 5 or 10 or 20 different ethnic groups who are all differentiated.

I didn't say it was easy to govern Europe. I just represented that your average European nation does have the vast array of opinions represented in sizable voting blocs that the USA does.

Can you point to another country like the U.S. where universal health care, pension, etc. have been tried but failed?

Well, you can certainly argue that it's failing across most of Europe, since those governments don't seem to be able to run balanced budgets while providing those services. Some are blowing up now, others will blow up in the future, but of all those countries, only Germany is in a truly strong fiscal position, and even Germany has a great deal of debt. It is strong in comparison to the other European countries, but not terribly strong in an absolute sense.

The appetite for healthcare is unlimited; the willingness (and ability) to pay taxes is sharply finite.

So they haven't failed, you're just claiming they will in the future based on a one-sided vague argument.

You've argued this before. People will always demand the latest and bestest treatment, and because we're weak emotional creatures we'll grant it and inflict ever-rising costs upon ourselves. Eventually we'll either drown in taxes or the system will implode.

It's just too simplistic. First of all, people do not take the streets when a stranger can't afford healthcare. They feel empathy for a second or two and move on with their lives. At least I do. You also ignore how yes, new treatments are very expensive, but they always become much cheaper over time as patents expire and as they become more common. And you're not taking into account how healthier people are more productive and how investing in healthcare has solid returns.

And even if you're right and our healthcare becomes a financial deathtrap, this doesn't mean it has to be nuked from orbit, just to be sure. Numerous changes could be made to the system to curb the costs (higher personal input, most expensive treatments no longer paid back, ...).

Might I also mention that between its height in 1996 and the financial crisis of 2008, the Belgian national debt has dropped from 130% GDP to 85% GDP? And that our deficit is shrinking again, thanks to budget cuts and tax increases the last two-three years? This despite rising healthcare costs.

Also, the notion that Germany is not terribly strong in absolute terms is very hard to swallow. Parking the fact you completely ignored Finland, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria all to one side for a moment, who exactly is leaving Germany in the shade? The bond markets are at the stage now that they are paying Germany to borrow their money given that their interest rates are below inflation. US T-Bills at 10 years are currently 1.9% while Bunds are 1.52%.

It is a little disingenuous to claim that is was public spending that caused the problems in Greece et. al. when we know that that really isn't the case at all. Rigid labour markets, crippling bureaucracy, buying of votes and out right fraud were the underlying causes to lesser or greater degrees in all the bailed out Member States or to put it another way: sloppy governance. Countries by all means can have their cake its just that politicians have to tell them they can't eat it as well.

Also, you are clearly not aware of the Fiscal Compact that came into force from the 1st of January this year so I think you need to update your theory of the direction of Europe. I really need to get back to the Euro debt thread and update it.

I'll bow out now, it's a very interesting conversation here generally. The cartoonish representation of how 'easy' it is to govern in Europe just irked me.

The thing that's usually missed, that while here in the US, we tend to boil everyone who has white skin down into the white person category that's oh-so-homogenous (unless, you know, you're Jewish, or Southern, or a Yankee, or from the East Coast or West coast or...) compared to those with darker skin colors, that isn't particularly a trend that has occured in Europe. So while there's a small non-white minority to Americans, to Europeans, there's like 5 or 10 or 20 different ethnic groups who are all differentiated.

I didn't say it was easy to govern Europe. I just represented that your average European nation does have the vast array of opinions represented in sizable voting blocs that the USA does.

Note that the key phrase there is "sizeable voting bloc"

Er, you are aware that the US has practically only two parties. Meanwhile in Europe, two parties is almost the basic minimum to form a government in Europe. The Dutch can have 5 or 6. Heck, the Greeks have 18 neo-Nazis sitting in their parliament. And that's not even mentioning the Commies!. On the other had, The House of Representatives is probably the politically narrowest legislator in the industrialized world.

When you start thinking about it a large part of the way this country is governed leads to the side effect of creating a highly disparate and extreme population.

How many in the US are now voting for the least worst option? If its large, that can't be good. I can vote for my tiny Green Party save in the knowledge that I can select other more mainstream party on my 2nd, 3rd, 4th preference depending on the number of candidates running. My vote is registered and I still get to have my say. Its a real pity the UK voted so heavily against AV.

Last post, I'm going to bed. Finally finished a whole lot of studying and exams

I’m the former Mint director and Treasury chief of staff who, with Rep. Mike Castle, wrote the platinum coin law and produced the original coin authorized by the law. Therefore, I’m in a unique position to address some confusion I’ve seen in the media about the $1 trillion platinum coin proposal.

* In minting the $1 trillion platinum coin, the Treasury Secretary would be exercising authority which Congress has granted routinely for more than 220 years. The Secretary’s authority is derived from an Act of Congress (in fact, a GOP Congress) under power expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

* What is unusual about the law (Sec. 5112 of title 31, United States Code) is that it gives the Secretary complete discretion regarding all specifications of the coin, including denominations.

* Moreover, the accounting treatment of the coin is identical to the treatment of all other coins. The Mint strikes the coin, ships it to the Fed, books $1 trillion, and transfers $1 trillion to the treasury’s general fund where it is available to finance government operations just like with proceeds of bond sales or additional tax revenues. The same applies for a quarter dollar.

* Once the debt limit is raised, the Fed ships the coin back to the Mint, the accounting treatment is reversed, and the coin is melted. The coin would never be “issued” or circulated and bonds would not be needed to back the coin.

* There are no negative macroeconomic effects. This works just like additional tax revenue or borrowing under a higher debt limit. In fact, when the debt limit is raised, Treasury would sell more bonds, the $1 trillion dollars would be taken off the books, and the coin would be melted.

* This does not raise the debt limit so it can’t be characterized as circumventing congressional authority over the debt limit. Rather, it delays when the debt limit is reached.

* This preserves congressional authority over the debt limit in a way that reliance on the 14th Amendment would not. It also avoids the protracted court battles the 14th Amendment option would entail and avoids another confrontation with the Roberts Court.

* Any court challenge is likely to be quickly dismissed since (1) authority to mint the coin is firmly rooted in law that itself is grounded in the expressed constitutional powers of Congress, (2) Treasury has routinely exercised this authority since the birth of the republic, and (3) the accounting treatment of the coin is entirely routine.

* Yes, this is an unintended consequence of the platinum coin bill, but how many other pieces of legislation have had unintended consequences? Most, I’d guess.

I like that we live in a country where such obviously unintended manipulation of economics and law is being paid attention to at all. The whole splitting hairs over definition thing works when you're trying to avoid telling your partner they've gained weight, but this is just stupid.

Edit: or, as the joke I made with a friend yesterday goes - "Welcome to Whose Money Is It Anyway? Where everything's made up and the debt doesn't matter."

"Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense."

This idea seems to be the cross of a government that wants to rule as it pleases and a government that is required to abide by the rules it's people have voted into existence. In a non democratic setting, there is no constraint on debt load.

He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. -PJE